

'o/ .ttffe.-.. ^<j» i. 

*°^ '"lip fl- 

WV '/, 







A»*A 



G* %. *?777* A O *».»* A* % *7f7Z* % A <> •?.»* A* V VET** A ^ 















A»*\v 



lV«^ 






0° 






^>«* A • 






^ A 



^\vl^\. G°*.«i^l.% 4**\c^/**- G°*.t^l.*°o >*Ci^**. C° 4 -!^I. 



» A **V 









!*• ^t. jl^ ♦Vs,V/*l° >^ A •* 






: S%. 









^°^ 

lN 









^^•V ^"3^\/ %^-\/ .. V"^\/ %^-*>° ... ^^^' 






" c *^« A • 



A«*> o%^^S?» <L^>*^^ - 



# W* 




* *£• <xv * rfCV s» /)u ^n ey * 



r oV 




A 1 ' °^ *" 1 ^ ^ **^° A 






A°* 



^ 'T^vTo* & 



A**« 



'-••_ ^. A* 







* o^ v X %1 ^\v v Wtt\r V^^V^ V : « ; \o^ v 55 '^^ < 



r^, 



>* ,0° "* 












'/..... \ /" 



v^ 



V** 














4<k 













V» * * * At . *u 



% 







*\tffc 




^9 XNN!*_Bfc£2 « ^* 








' ** V % 






„;* «r % v 



& 









r +6 

r t 



«5°<* 



,••• 



• ■• 



3 v a 












•5^ 









• .o 







c^ ^. 















.^^ 




• .A V «^. 








BUREAU OF MINES 
INFORMATION CIRCULAR/1988 



Dbof 




Mining and Reclamation of a Central 
Florida Forested Wetland: A Case 
Study 

By J. R. Boyle, Jr. 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 



Information Circular 9199 
u 



Mining and Reclamation of a Central 
Florida Forested Wetland: A Case 
Study 

By J. R. Boyle, Jr. 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
Donald Paul Hodel, Secretary 

BUREAU OF MINES 
T S Ary, Director 

This report is based upon work done under an agreement Letv-. n the University of 
Alabama and the Bureau of Mines. 






Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data: 



Boyle, James R. 

Mining and reclamation of a central Florida forested wetland. 

(Bureau of Mines information circular; 9199) 

Bibliography: p. 23 

Supt. of Docs, no.: I 28.27:9199. 

1. Phosphate mines and mining-Environmental aspects-Florida. 2. 
Reclamation of land-Florida. 3. Wetland conservation-Florida. I. Title. II. Series: 
Information circular (United States. Bureau of Mines); 9199. 

TN295.U4 [TN195.P47] 622 s [631'.6'4] 88-600183 



CONTENTS 



Abstract 1 

Introduction 2 

Acknowledgments 2 

Research approach 2 

Test site 3 

Topography 4 

Ecology 7 

Soils and lithology 8 

Premining monitoring program 8 

Ecology 9 

Water 9 

Lithology and soils 10 

Site preparation and mining 17 

Recontouring and revegetation 19 

Grading 19 

Cover crop establishment 19 

Revegetation 19 

Maintenance 21 

Wildlife 22 

Evaluation of restoration 22 

Cost factors 23 

Summary 23 

References 23 

Appendix.~Permit requirements 24 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

1. Diagram of Federal agency and private cooperator responsibilities 3 

2. Location of Big Four Mine in relation to surrounding area 4 

3. Aerial photograph showing wetlands test site 5 

4. Mining Unit No. 1C and portion covered by test site 6 

5. Area of tributary showing test site, vegetation donor site, stream channel, 25-yr flood plain limits, 

and Department of Environmental Regulation jurisdictional boundary 6 

6. Premine topography of test site and surrounding area 7 

7. Vegetation map showing transects established by AMAX 8 

8. Lithologic cross section of test site showing relationships of overburden, matrix, and bedrock 8 

9. Locations of rain gauges, stream gauges, surface stage gauges, observation wells, continuous recorders, 

and transects established by USGS 9 

10. Network established by USGS to monitor biological and hydrological conditions atcontrol site at 

Brewster Ft. Lonesome Mine 10 

11. Lithologic cores 1 and 2 16 

12. Dike construction during test site preparation 17 

13. Bulldozers clearing overstory before mining 18 

14. Dragline sequence used to mine area containing test site 18 

15. Dragline mining test site 19 

16. Site after completion of grading, with cover crop established 20 

17. Sand tailings pumped into upland areas 20 

18. Postmining topography 21 

19. Transplanted vegetation island 22 



TABLES 



Page 



1. USGS vegetative species list and percent coverage at test site, by quadrat . 11 

2. Results of USGS invertebrate sampling at test site 12 

3. USGS vegetative species list and percent coverage at control site, by quadrat 13 

4. Results of USGS invertebrate sampling at control site 13 

5. Results of USGS ground and surface water quality survey for test and control sites 14 

6. Lithologic descriptions of coreholes 1 and 2 14 

7. Analysis of USGS soil samples from test site 15 





UNIT OF MEASURE ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT 


ACU 


apparent color unit 


mt 


metric ton 


cm 


centimeter 


m gAg 


milligram per kilogram 


ha 


hectare 


mg/L 


milligram per liter 


kg/ha 


kilogram per hectare 


mmho/cm 


millimho per centimeter 


km 


kilometer 


NTU 


nephelometric turbidity unit 


m 


meter 


pCi/g 


picocurie per gram 


m 2 
m 


square meter 


pet 


percent 


m 3 
m 


cubic meter 


wt pet 


weight percent 


m 3 /s 


cubic meter per second 


yr 


year 



MINING AND RECLAMATION OF A CENTRAL FLORIDA FORESTED 

WETLAND: A CASE STUDY 



By James R. Boyle, Jr. 1 



ABSTRACT 

The Bureau of Mines initiated a program to address short- and long-term objectives of wetlands 
restoration as a option for reclamation of lands mined for phosphate. The short-term objectives were 
to identify a suitable wetland test site, initiate an extensive premining monitoring plan, develop an 
acceptable mining plan, and recontour and revegetate the test site. These goals were accomplished using 
a unique combination of expertise provided by Federal and State agencies and private industry. 

A 6.5-ha forested wetland with an associated streambed was offered by private industry as the test 
site. A premining monitoring program was established and carried out from May 1982 to October 1983. 
A control site was established to determine ecological changes unrelated to mining. Clearing and mining 
began in October 1983 and was completed in April 1984. Grading and streambed restoration was 
completed in February 1986. Revegetation of the site was completed in February 1987. The program 
to meet the long-term objective of postmining monitoring is described. 



Mining engineer, Tuscaloosa Research Center, Bureau of Mines, Tuscaloosa, AL. 



INTRODUCTION 



The Bureau of Mines, in its role to provide technology 
for minerals and materials related problems, identified a 
unique problem involved in the mining of phosphates 
found in Florida wetlands. A key element was the 
concerns of the State's regulatory agencies in permitting 
the mining of forested wetlands before the technological 
ability to restore these wetlands was clearly demonstrated. 

Florida's phosphate industry accounts for over 80 pet of 
the Nation's phosphate production. Almost 20 pet of the 
land owned by phosphate companies is land designated as 
wetlands. These wetlands contain 500 million mt of 
recoverable phosphate or 17 pet of Florida's phosphate 
reserve base (1). The State of Florida has restricted, and 
in many cases prohibited, the mining of wetlands, resulting 
in an estimated loss of millions of tons of marketable 
phosphate. 

The importance of phosphate to the Nation's farming 
industry is clearly documented. The importance of 
wetlands to water quality enhancement, water detention, 
ground water recharge-discharge, and wildlife 
enhancement (2) has gained State and even National 
attention. The loss of wetlands mainly from urbanization, 
highway construction, and agriculture (3) has led the State 
of Florida to pass a Wetlands Preservation Act that is 
designed to limit the development of wetlands. 

The ability to re-create freshwater marshes and lakes on 
disturbed land has been proven by the Florida phosphate 
industry, at least in the short term (4). The re-creation of 
forested wetlands, because of its diversity, would be much 
more difficult to accomplish. Regulatory agencies are very 
reluctant to allow the mining of forested wetlands solely on 
the results of studies on re-creating freshwater marshes 
and lakes. Several attempts to meet regulatory standards 
for forested wetland mining have resulted in insufficient 
documentation of the premining and postmining 



conditions. Frequently, the lack of baseline data 
concerning premining hydrology, diversity of wetland 
biological communities, and standards for restoration of 
these elements has prevented the development of 
documentation to justify the disruption of the ecological 
system, which would be caused by mining. Consequently, 
forested wetland phosphate deposits are not normally 
permitted for mining by regulatory authorities. 

To deal with the issue of mining forested wetlands, the 
Bureau initiated a research program to mine, restore, and 
monitor a small forested wetland. To achieve this goal, 
the Bureau coordinated the efforts of the U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(USFWS), the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research 
(FTPR), and the industry cooperator, AMAX, Inc. 

Because the objective of the project was to demonstrate 
technology to mine and restore a forested wetland, 
AMAX, Inc., was required to obtain permits to mine and 
reclaim the site. Approvals were obtained from the 
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), 
the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and 
the U.S. Corps of Engineers (see appendix). Approval 
also had to be obtained from the Hillsborough County 
Commission. County ordinances prohibit mining within 
the 25-yr flood plain and AMAX, Inc., found that 
approximately 2.4 ha of the site fell within the 25-yr flood 
plain. A waiver requested by AMAX, Inc., was denied. 
The loss of the 2.4 ha affected the project in that this 
property made up approximately 45 pet of the stream 
channel (5). 

Since the inception and implementation of this program, 
several other programs have been initiated to address the 
reclamation of forested wetlands (5). However, 5 to 10 yr 
will be needed to determine the success of this and other 
programs. 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 



The author expresses his appreciation to FTPR (grant 
83.03.049) for its cooperation and funding in this research 
effort to develop techniques for mining and restoration of 
wetlands. 

AMAX, Inc., assistance in site selection and preparation 
is acknowledged along with the USGS for its monitoring 



programs, the USFWS for its development of a restoration 
plan, and Brewster Phosphates for the donation of the 
control site. 



RESEARCH APPROACH 



The Bureau program called for both 
short- and-long-term objectives. The short-term objectives 
were to identify a wetland test site, initiate an extensive 
premining monitoring program, develop and implement a 
mining plan, and recontour and revegetate the site. The 

^Underlined numbers in parentheses refer to items in the list of 
references preceding the appendix. 



long-term objective was to develop postmining monitoring 
program to determine the success of the restored 
hydrological and biological regimes. 

A closely coordinated, systematic approach was essential 
for success of this program. Because of the many 
cooperators, involving both private industry and 
multiagency participants, close coordination of the task 
elements was required. Figure 1 shows the relationship of 



USGS 




BuMines 
AMAX 




USFWS 


1 


i 










i 




Conduct 

lithological 

survey 






Review existing 
biological data 


i 


i 




i 


1 




i 


Conduct 

biological 

survey 




Devise and 

implement 

mining plan 




Evaluate data 

on premining 

ecosystem 


i 


i 


• 


i 






i 




i 


1 


Conduct 

hydrological 

survey 






Devise and 

implement grading 

and contouring plan 




Recommend 

revegetation 

plan 






( 


f 




i 




' 


1 


Evaluate data 
and prepare 
reports 




Assemble and 
evaluate reports 




Prepare postmining 
monitoring program 










_j 


1 








Deliver 

completed 

report 





FIGURE 1. -Diagram of Federal agency and private cooperator responsibilities. 



the Federal and private participants, with the Bureau as 
the lead agency, coordinating the activities of the 
cooperating company and the participating Federal 
agencies. A unique feature of this project was the 
involvement of U.S. Department of the Interior agencies 
that possess the undisputed expertise required for this 
project. 

The USGS and USFWS were each responsible for their 
respective areas of expertise. The USGS was responsible 



for the collection and evaluation of premining hydrological, 
biological, and geological data at the test site and the 
establishment of a control site. The USFWS was 
responsible for the development of a reclamation plan and 
postmining monitoring program. The Bureau, in 
cooperation with AMAX, Inc., used the data developed by 
the agencies to design an acceptable mining and 
recontouring plan. 



TEST SITE 



The test site was within sec. 25, T 31 S, R 22 E, of 
Hillsborough County, FL. The property was owned in fee 
simply by AMAX, Inc., and was part of its Big Four Mine 
(fig. 2). The test site consisted of approximately 6.5 ha 



(fig. 3) and was part of a 37.2-ha tract of land designated 
by AMAX, Inc., as Mining Unit No. 1C. The site was in 
the central portion of No. 1C (fig. 4) and was permitted 
for mining as a part of this unit. 




MANATEE COUNTY 



KEY MAP 





Study 
area 



LEGEND 
City, town 

River, stream 
— (7§)— National interstate highway 
— (92j— U.S. highway 
<<5o) — State highway 



20 



Scale, km 



FIGURE 2.-Location of Big Four Mine in relation to surrounding area. 



TOPOGRAPHY 

A small stream channel and its associated wetlands that 
serves as a primary tributary to Lake Branch makes up 
the study site. The stream channel is approximately 760 m 
in length, with 305 m being in the test site (fig. 5). The 
flow in this stream is listed by the USGS as intermittent. 
During the dry season base flow is provided by ground 
water seepage. Streamflow averaged 0.1 m 3 /s in 1983 (6). 



The topography of the site and upland areas is shown 
in figure 6. Because of the relatively steep gradient 
adjacent to the channel, ground water seepage contributes 
a great deal to streamflow. From 1977 to 1982, 
approximately 85 pet of the watershed for this stream has 
been affected by mining. 




FIGURE 3.-Aerial photograph showing wetlands test site. 




Mining limit of 
No. 1C 



N 

i 



LEGEND 
Test site 



^ '"*- Intermittent 
stream 





i_ 



250 

I 



Scale, m 



FIGURE 4.-Minlng Unit No. 1C and portion covered by test site. 




Plant site 



Scale, m 



LEGEND 

Y77A Test site 

irTTTTH Vegetation 
donor site 

Intermittent 

stream 

- 25-yr flood 

plain 

p'-"^ DER jurisdictional 
boundary 



FIGURE 5.-Area of tributary showing test site, vegetation donor site, stream channel, 25-yr flood 
plain limits, and Department of Environmental Regulation jurisdictional boundary. 



ECOLOGY 

In 1975, AMAX, Inc., proposed three sites for mining. 
State regulations required a broad ecological evaluation of 
the sites. In 1980, an evaluation of the three sites was 
initiated. The wetlands test site was in one of the sites. 
The information developed was made available as baseline 
data for this reclamation project. 

The most useful information from the early studies was 
data from two linear vegetative transects, C-l and C-2, 
shown in figure 7. The transects were run north-south, 
with C-l being in the test site and C-2 just east of the site. 
Four 1-m -quadrats were established along each transect, 
the placement being random, but not more than 10 m 
from the transect line. The vegetative conditions can be 
summarized as follows (7). 



The canopy and understory is dominated by upland 
hardwoods (60 pet). The remainder of the system is 
freshwater swamp relative to level III classification. 
Red maple and sweet gum are the most prevalent 
canopy species in this area. Understory constituents 
are not predominantly hydric as expected, but mesic, 
dominated by wax myrtle and palmetto. Hydric 
indicators such as chain fern (Woodwardier spp.) are 
dominant within 3 to 9 m of the well incised creek. 
Flow was observed throughout the monitoring 
program in System C (test site area). The system is 
almost homogenous along its 730 m length. The 
interior swamp is bordered on both sides by upland 
hardwoods (fig. 7). Canopy and ground cover 
diversity is relatively high in this system. 



I i— Property line 




LEGEND 

Land surface, 
29— 1.5 m contour 
interval 



Plant site 





l_ 



250 



Scale, m 



FIGURE 6.-Premine topography of test site and surrounding area. 



Plant site 



': r~Property line 




N 



LEGEND 
V/A Hardwoods 
llllll Freshwater swamp 
-----25~yr flood plain 
•■-' -^-Intermittent stream 



Scale, m 



250 

I 



FIGURE 7.-Vegetation map showing transects established by AMAX. 



The USGS reestablished C-l and C-2 along with an 
additional transect. This information is given in detail in 
the "Premining Monitoring Program" section. 

SOILS AND LITHOLOGY 

As defined by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, the 
soils beneath the site are classified as alluvial and 
characteristic of a freshwater swamp. Rutledge Fine Sand 
type soils are also found on the site and this soil is 
characteristic of upland hardwood and pine flatwoods 
vegetation. 

Based on exploratory drilling, the overburden beneath 
the test site averages 7 m in thickness and the matrix 
thickness is 3 to 3.4 m. Figure 8 shows a cross section of 
the site illustrating the overburden and matrix. 



Stream channel 




FIGURE 8.-Lithologic cross section of test site showing 
relationships of overburden, matrix, and bedrock. 



PREMINING MONITORING PROGRAM 



The USGS in consultation with the Bureau, planned 
and implemented an extensive premining monitoring 
program. This program was designed to gather enough 
baseline data at the test site so that a comprehensive 
restoration and revegetation plan could be drawn up and 
implemented. In conjunction with this program, a control 
site was set up to define any hydrological or biological 



changes that may have occurred in the area unrelated to 
mining. 

The data collection network at the test site (fig. 9) was 
started May 27, 1982, and completed August 16, 1982. The 
network consisted of a continuous recording rain gauge, 
two stream gauges, a surface stage gauge, 10 observation 
wells, 2 lithologic core holes, and linear transects A B, and 



C; A and B being the reestablished C-l and C-2, where 
biological and soil samples were collected. This network 
was used to check premining conditions of rainfall, 
streamflow, ground water levels, lithologic cores, physical 
and chemical properties of soils, surface and ground water 
chemistry, and to gather biological data. 

The USGS, between September 1983 and January 1984, 
established a control site at the Brewster Phosphates Ft. 
Lonesome Mine, approximately 5 miles southwest of the 
test site. The monitoring network consisted of a stream 
gauge, nine observation wells, and one linear transect with 
the associated biological monitoring station (fig. 10). 

ECOLOGY 

The USGS established three linear transects in and 
around the test site area (fig. 9) to observe the vegetative 
cover and gather benthic invertebrate samples. Transect 
A was in the test site, B was downstream in an area to be 
used as a vegetation donor site, and C was to remain 
undisturbed. Transects A and B each had four vegetative 
quadrats established. The quadrats were 1-m boxes 
established just off the transects in areas determined to 
have typical vegetative cover. The quadrats were observed 
twice, in January and June of 1983. The species and 
coverage observed by quadrat is shown in table 1. 



Biological monitoring stations were established at all 
three transects. Benthic invertebrate sampling was 
conducted in January and June of 1983. The type of 
aquatic species sampled and the total counted by transect 
is shown in table 2. 

The USGS established one control site linear transect 
AC (fig. 10) and one biological monitoring station to 
determine any long-term changes in the area. The transect 
had four 2-m -quadrats established in the same manner as 
the test site. The quadrats were observed in April and 
June 1984 and in January 1985. The species observed and 
coverage by quadrat are shown in table 3. The biological 
monitoring station was sampled in April 1984. The species 
and number counted are shown in table 4. 

In general, the area of high ground at the control site 
was dominated by slash pine, saw palmetto, wax myrtle, 
and fetterbrush. Vegetation along the tributary was 
classified as palm oak hammock. The canopy was 
dominated by water oak, sweet bay, loblolly bay, and some 
red maple. Ground cover was dominated by saw palmetto, 
chain fern, swamp azalea, and cinnamon fern (6). 

WATER 

Figure 9 shows the location of the rain, stream, and 
surface stage gauges at the test site. Total rainfall for 1983 



£ 



Property line 



Transect 
A 



MS4 (^-Limits of 
| mining 

MM 4,5,6 

> I , 




Plant site 



LEGEND 

Rain gauge 

a Stream gauge 

v Surface stage gauge 

oo Observation well 

• Observation well 
with continuous 
recorder 

■ Biological monitor- 
ing station 

® Corehole 

-,. Intermittent 
^ stream 

-''25 - yr flood plain 



FIGURE 9.-Locations of rain gauges, stream gauges, surface stage gauges, observation wells, 
continuous recorders, and transects established by USGS. 



10 



Pasture 




LEGEND 

■ Quadrat location 

° Observation well 

• Benthic invertebrate 
sampling station 

a Stream gauge 

_ — Intermittent stream 

===Dirt road 



150 



a 






Scale, m 



FIGURE 10.-Network established by USGS to monitor biological and hydrological 
conditions at control site at Brewster Ft Lonesome Mine. 



was 130 cm, with a maximum daily precipitation of 7.4 cm. 
Rainfall in 1984 was 121 cm, with a maximum daily rainfall 
of 9.9 cm (6). 

Gauges to monitor streamflow at the test site were 
established at transect A on May 27, 1982, and at transect 
B on August 16, 1982. From October 1, 1982, to 
September 30, 1983, streamflow at B averaged 0.01 m 3 /s; 
maximum discharge was 0.1 m /s. Streamflow at the 
control site averaged 0.001 m /s during 1984; maximum 
discharge during this period was 0.2 nr/s (6). 

Ground water at the test site was monitored using 10 
observation wells (fig. 9). From October 1, 1982, to 
September 30, 1983, water levels during dry periods ranged 
from 0.5 to 2.1 m below land surface and for the wet 
summer months from at or near land surface to 1.2 m 
below the land surface. 

Data collection at the site ceased because of the startup 
of mining operations in October 1983. Ground water at 
the control site for 1984 was monitored using nine 
observation wells (fig. 10). Ground water levels for the dry 
period ranged from 0.7 to 1.3 m below land surface. Wet 
period levels ranged from at or near land surface to 0.2 m 
below land surface (6). 



The test site water samples were taken from the 
tributary at transect B and for ground water from the 
observation wells MM2 and MM6 (MM designates wells 
in the test site; MS are wells outside the test site). The 
control site sample was taken at the tributary. For the 
month of September 1983, the pH at the test site tributary 
and the control site was 4.9 and 5.3, respectively. The 
stream stage for this same period was 0.42 m above the 
datum at the test site and 0.37 m above at the control site. 
Analyses for the tributary and ground water samples are 
shown in table 5 (6). 

UTHOLOGY AND SOILS 

The test site was cored at the north end of transects A 
and C (fig. 9). The logs of both holes are shown in figure 
11 and table 6 gives the lithologic description. 

Soil samples for the test site were collected at transects 
A, B, and C. The analyses for nutrients and Ra 226 are 
shown in table 7. The upland soils consisted of Ona fine 
sand and Pomello fine sand. The wetland soils consisted 
of fine alluvium and Rutledge soil. Similar soils were 
observed at the control site (6). 



TABLE 1. - USGS vegetative species list and percent coverage at test site, by quadrat 



11 



Species list 

TRANSECTA" 
Quadrat 1: 

Acer rubrum (red maple) 

Liquidambr styraciflua (sweet gum) 

Osmunda cinnamonea (cinnamon fern) 

Psilotum nudum (whisk fern) 

Quercus nigra (water oak) 

Saururus cemuus (lizard's tail) 

Smilax waiter! (coral greenbrier) 

ft Toxicondendron (poison ivy) 

Woodwardia areolata (chain fern) 

Woodwardia virginiana (chain fern) 

Litter 

Quadrat 2: 

Acer rubrum (red maple) 

Azalea viscosum (swamp azalea) 

Liquidambr styraciflua (sweet gum) . . . 

Psilotum nudum (whisk fern) 

Quercus Nigra (water oak) 

Smilax waiter! (coral greenbrier) 

Vitis rotundifolia (muscadine grape) . . . 

Woodwardia areolata (chain fern) 

Litter 

Quadrat 3: 

Cephalanthus occidentalis (buttonbush) 

Osmunda cinnamonea (cinnamon fern) 

Psilotum nudum (whisk fern) 

Quercus nigra (water oak) 

Quercus pumila (runner oak) 

Serenoa repens (saw palmetto) 

Vitis rotundifolia (muscadine grape) . . . 

Woodwardia areolata (chain fern) 

Litter 

Quadrat 4: 

Azalea viscosum (swamp azalea) 

Paspalum sp 

Psilotum nudum (whisk fern) 

Quercus nigra (water oak) 

Serenoa repens (saw palmetto) 

Woowardia areolata (chain fern) 

Utter 



Jan. 
1983 



June 
1983 



Species list Jan. June 

1983 1983 

TRANSECT B 

Quadrat 1: 

Acer rubrum (ted maple) 1 1 

Osmunda cinnamonea (cinnamon fern) 10 15 

Saururus cemuus (lizard's tail) 5 15 

Smilax sp. (brier) 1 1 

ft Toxicondendron (poison ivy) 1 

Vitis rotundifolia (muscadine grape) 1 5 

Woodwardia areolata (chain fern) 10 25 

Litter 72 37 



Quadrat 2: 

Acer rubrum (ted maple) 1 1 

Magnolia virginiana (southern magnolia) 20 40 

Saururus cemuus (lizard's tail) 5 

Smilax waiter! (coral greenbrier) 1 5 

ft Toxicondendron (poison ivy) 1 

Woodwardia areolata (chain fern) 1 10 

Utter 77 38 

Quadrat 3: 

Acer rubrum (red maple) 1 1 

Osmunda cinnamonea (cinnamon fern) 5 10 

Psilotum nudum (whisk fern) 1 5 

Saururus cemuus (lizard's tail) 5 15 

Woodwardia areolata (chain fern) 15 30 

Utter 73 39 



Quadrat 4: 

Acer rubrum (red maple) 1 1 

Psilotum nudum (whisk fern) 1 

Woodwardia areolata (chain fern) 40 70 

Utter 59 28 



5 

1 
5 
1 
5 
1 
1 


10 
5 

66 

1 
1 

1 

1 

10 

1 

1 

20 

64 



5 

1 

1 



20 

1 

30 

42 

10 

1 

1 

5 

15 

10 

58 



5 

5 

10 

10 

5 

5 

5 

1 

30 

15 

8 

5 
5 

1 
10 
20 

5 

5 
40 

8 

1 

10 

5 

1 

1 

20 

5 

40 

7 

20 
10 
10 
5 
15 
20 
20 



Source: T. H. Thompson, USGS 



12 

TABLE 2. - Results of USGS invertebrate sampling; species and total counted by transect at test site 

Aquatic species sampled Jan. June 

1983 1983 

TRANSECT A 

Annelida: Hirudinea (leech): Placobdella omata 1 

Arthropoda: 
Crustacea: 

Amphipoda (scuds): Hyalella azteca 15 

Decopoda (crayfish): 

Juvenile crayfish 14 

Procambarus sp 6 

Isopoda (sow bugs): Unidentified isopod 1 

Insecta: 
Odonata (dragonflies, damselflies): 

Enallagma sp 3 1 

Gomphus pallidus 10 1 

Pachydiplax longipennis 8 1 

Hemiptera (true bugs): Lethocerus 3 1 

Diptera (true flies): 

Unidentifiable fly larva 1 

Tanypus carinatus 1 

Coleoptera (beetles): 

Bidessus sp 3 2 

Hvdroooous 4 1_ 

TRANSECT B 

Arthropoda: 
Crustacea: 

Amphipoda (scuds): Hyalella azteca 1 

Decopoda (crayfish): 

Juvenile crayfish 18 10 

Procambarus sp 2 1 

Insecta: 
Odonata (dragonflies, damselflies) 

Gomphus pallidus 14 4 

Gomphaeschna sp 10 2 

Hemiptera (true bugs): Lethocerus 4 2 

Coleoptera (beetles): 

Bidessus sp 4 3 

Hygrotus 1 2 

Mollusca: Gastropoda (snails): Ferrissia sp 1 0_ 

TRANSECT C 

Arthropoda: Crustacea: Decopoda (shrimp, crayfish): 

Juvenile crayfish 18 10 

Palaemonites palludosus 25 12 

Mollusca: Gastropoda (snails): Ferrissia sp 1 3_ 

Source: T. H. Thompson, USGS. 



13 
TABLE 3. - USGS vegetative species list and percent coverage at control site, by quadrat 

Species list Apr. June Jan. 

1984 1984 1985 

QUADRAT 1 

Azalea viscosum (swamp azalea) 50 50 

Magnolia virginiana (southern magnolia) 10 20 20 

Osmunda cinnamonea (cinnamon fern) 5 5 

Serenoa repens (saw palmetto) 1 1 1 

Woodwardia areolata (chain fern) 5 15 10 

Litter 29 9. 59_ 

QUADRAT 2 

Osmunda cinnamonea (cinnamon fern) 30 30 

Quercus chapmanii (chapman oak) 10 5 5 

Quercus nigra (water oak) 1 5 

Sereona repens (saw palmetto) 10 25 25 

Smilax sp. (brier) 5 5 5 

VHis rotundifolia (muscadine grape) 10 10 

Litter 34 20 65_ 

QUADRAT 3 

Lyonia lucida (fetterbush) 20 20 10 

Osmunda cinnamonea (cinnamon fern) 10 40 

Quercus chapmanii (chapman oak) 10 10 10 

Sereona repens (saw palmetto) 1 1 

Smilax sp. (brier) 10 1 

VHis rotundifolia (muscadine grape) 10 20 

Unidentifiable herb 10 

Litter 34 18 80_ 

QUADRAT 4 

Lyonia lucida (fetterbush) 10 10 

Osmunda cinnamonea (cinnamon fern) 20 40 

Quercus nigra (water oak) 5 5 30 

Sereona repens (saw palmetto) 1 

Smilax sp. (brier) 10 10 

Vitis rotendifolia (muscadine grape) 30 25 

Unidentified herb 1 

Litter 25 10 64_ 

Source: T. H. Thompson, USGS. 

TABLE 4. - Results of USGS invertebrate sampling at control site, 
total counted 

Species list Apr. 1984 

Arthropoda: Crustacea: 

Amphipoda (scuds): Hyalella azteca 1 

Isopoda (sow bugs): Unidentified isopod 1 

Insecta: Odonata (dragonflies, damselflies): 

Enallagma sp 1 

Gomphus pallidus 1 

Diptera (true flies): Chironomidae: 

Tanypus carinatus 25 

Unidentifiable fly larv a 5 

Source: T. H. Thompson, USGS. 



14 



TABLE 5. - Results of USGS ground and surface water quality survey for test and control sites 







Test site 




Control 


Samples 


MM2 


MM6 


Tributary 


tributary 




Nov. 1982 Sept. 1983 


Nov. 1982 Sept. 1983 


Nov. 1982 Sept. 1983 


Sept. 1983 



Analysis, mg/L: 

Total organic nitrogen 

Dissolved organic nitrogen 

Total ammonia nitrogen 

Dissolved ammonia nitrogen 

Total nitrate nitrogen 

Dissolved orthophosphate (PO A ) .... 

Total phosphorus (P) 

Dissolved phosphorus (P) 

Dissolved orthophosphorus (P) 

Dissolved calcium 

Dissolved magnesium 

Dissolved fluoride 

Total organic carbon 

Dissolved organic carbon 

Hardness 

Alkalinity 

Dissolved oxygen 

Suspended solids 

Specific conductance .... mmho/cm 

PH 

Color ACU 

Turbidity NTU 

Stream flow m /s 

Stream stage m above datum 



ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 


0.28 


ND 


ND 


0.06 


ND 


0.02 


ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 


0.15 


ND 


0.28 


0.02 


ND 


ND 


0.13 


ND 


0.22 


ND 


0.02 


0.04 


0.03 


ND 


ND 


ND 


<0.01 


ND 


ND 


ND 


0.46 


ND 


0.06 


ND 


2.1 


ND 


ND 


ND 


0.3 


ND 


0.14 


0.74 


1.7 


0.73 


0.16 


ND 


0.02 


ND 


0.68 


1.5 


0.66 


0.15 


ND 


0.02 


ND 


0.68 


1.5 


0.69 


4.2 


ND 


36.0 


ND 


7.80 


ND 


ND 


2.80 


ND 


20.0 


ND 


3.10 


ND 


ND 


0.20 


ND 


0.50 


ND 


0.60 


ND 


ND 


3.90 


ND 


6.70 


ND 


8.20 


ND 


ND 


3.90 


ND 


4.60 


ND 


8.20 


ND 


ND 


22.0 


ND 


170.0 


ND 


32.0 


ND 


ND 


3.00 


ND 


182.0 


ND 


7.00 


ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 


5.30 


ND 


ND 


52.0 


ND 


200 


ND 


67 


ND 


ND 


98 


93 


355 


367 


100 


102 


86 


4.9 


4.6 


7.4 


6.2 


6.0 


4.9 


5.3 


20 


ND 


30 


ND 


50 


ND 


ND 


45 


ND 


3.7 


ND 


1.3 


ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 


0.01 


0.01 


0.001 


ND 


ND 


ND 


ND 


0.41 


0.42 


0.37 



ND Not determined. 



Source: T. H. Thompson, USGS. 



TABLE 6. - Lithologic description of coreholes 1 and 2 



Hole 



Strata Depth, m Thickness, m 



Material 



A 


- 7.2 


7.2 


B 


7.2-11.0 


3.8 


B 


11.0-12.2 


1.2 


C 


12.2-13.6 


1.4 


D 


13.6-14.9 


1.4 


A 


-.33 


.3 


B 


.3-2.4 


2.1 


C 


2.4- 2.9 


.5 


D 


2.9-4.1 


1.2 


E 


4.1-6.1 


2.0 


F 


6.1-9.6 


3.5 


G 


9.6-10.2 


.6 


H 


10.2-12.2 


2.0 


I 


12.2-16.8 


4.6 



Fine to very fine quartz sand; organic debris 0.3 to 0.6 m. 

Sandy clay with phosphate grains. 

No sample. 

Clay. 

Friable limestone cream with quartz grains. 

Organic debris. 

Fine quartz sand. 

Sand with clay. 

Sandy clay. 

Fine quartz sand. 

Fine quartz sand with phosphate. 

Limestone cream with phosphate. 

Sandy clay with phosphate. 

Soft limestone cream with phosphate. 



TABLE 7. - Analysis of USGS soil samples from test site 



15 



Sample 



Sampling 

depth, cm Ca 



Mg 



Na 



Elements, mg/kg 



Al 



Cu 



Fe 



Mn 



Zn 



Transect A: 

A1 0.0-21.6 

A2 35.6-55.9 

A3 61.0-81.3 

B1 5.1-15.2 

B2 40.6-55.9 



33.0 
39.0 
25.0 
330.0 
26.0 



2.8 
4.7 
2.6 

.170 
5.5 



8.0 
12.0 

9.0 
10.0 
11.0 



3.0 
2.0 
2.0 
70.0 
2.0 



22.0 
25.0 
22.0 
92.0 
28.0 



40.0 

80.0 

300.0 

200.0 

50.0 



290.0 
130.0 
950.0 
1,200.0 
360.0 



<1.6 
<1.6 
<1.6 
<1.6 
<1.6 



15.0 
20.0 

5.1 
99.0 

9.6 



<2.4 
<2.4 
<2.4 
<2.4 
<2.4 



PH 



Organic 
matter, 
wt pet 



Total 
kjeldohl 
nitrogen, 
mg/kg 



Total 
soluble 

salts, 
mg/kg 



pH 



Organic 
matter, 
wt pet 



C1 10.2-25.4 

C2 30.5-53.3 

C3 53.3-61.0 

D1 0-15.2 

D2 30.5-45.7 

Transect C: 

E1 0-15.2 

E2 25.4-38.1 

E3 45.7-53.3 



E1 0-15.2 

E2 25.4-38.1 

E3 45.7-53.3 



4.05 
4.71 
5.20 
5.12 
6.32 



2.49 

.89 

.25 

10.26 

1.12 



Total 

kjeldohl 

nitrogen, 

mg/kg 



1,860.0 
1,260.0 

360.0 
10,800.0 

650.0 



Total 
soluble 

salts, 
mg/kg 



81.0 
58.0 
30.0 
250.0 
58.0 



71.75 
79.60 
80.15 
32.38 
69.57 



17.0 

6.9 

2.2 

25.0 

14.0 



78.74 
96.36 
95.19 
70.07 
95.58 



19.69 
2.66 
3.73 

25.85 
3.11 



1.57 
.98 
1.08 
4.08 
1.31 



2.46 

.24 

.23 

1.09 

1.85 



5.03 
5.09 
5.34 



0.71 
.84 
■30 



110.0 
720.0 
740.0 



54.0 85.02 

85.0 86.23 

110.0 86.51 



7.4 
8.4 
3.0 



95.63 
95.48 
96.76 



3.27 
3.33 
2.56 



1.10 

1.19 

.68 



0.73 

2.42 

.59 



1.3 
1.7 
1.2 
3.0 
2.4 



Total Cation 

solids, exchange Sand, Silt, Clay, Ra 226, pCi/g 

wt pet capacity wt pet wt pet wt pet Ash Dry 



Total Cation 

solids, exchange Sand, Silt, Clay, Ra 226, pCi/g 

wt pet capacity wt pet wt pet wt pet Ash Dry 



1.78 
.23 
.22 
.97 

1.83 



0.75 

2.34 

.59 



55.0 
25.0 
50.0 
40.0 
40.0 



A1 0-21.6 5.01 0.54 640.0 270.0 89.16 11.0 90.69 6.67 2.64 2.76 2.63 

A2 35.6-55.9 4.33 .28 1,000.0 490.0 86.97 1.6 95.58 3.80 .62 .32 .32 

A3 61.0-81.3 4.67 .85 820.0 30.0 83.51 8.3 93.17 4.96 1.87 .59 .58 

B1 5.1-15.2 3.96 9.60 5,740.0 160.0 37.82 30.0 51.42 41.95 6.63 1.67 1.30 

B2 40.6-55.9 5.22 .43 410.0 38.0 73.20 3.9 97.43 1.05 1.32 .43 .42 

Elements, mg/kg 

Ca Mo P K Na S Al Cu Fe Mn Zn B 

Transect B: 

C1 10.2-25.4 160.0 26.0 11.0 6.0 42.0 100.0 390.0 <1.6 79.0 2.7 2.5 40.0 

C2 30.5-53.3 28.0 7.0 38.0 4.0 34.0 40.0 690.0 <1.6 110.0 8.4 2.3 40.0 

C3 53.3-61.0 18.0 3.8 27.0 2.0 27.0 100.0 350.0 <1.6 21.0 <2.4 1.6 18.0 

D1 0-15.2 2,000.0 790.0 30.0 120.0 190.0 300.0 660.0 <1.6 72.0 <2.4 8.0 29.0 

D2 30.5-45.7 300.0 120.0 17.0 3.0 29.0 50.0 250.0 <1.6 55.0 <2.4 1.9 33.0 













Elements, 


mq/kq 












Ca 


Mo 


P 


K 


Na 


S 


A1 


Cu 


Fe 


Mn 


Zn 


B 


110.0 

140.0 

47.0 


29.0 

39.0 

8.9 


30.0 
42.0 
36.0 


3.0 
3.0 
2.0 


30.0 
30.0 
41.0 


30.0 

400.0 

30.0 


1,190.0 

1,960.0 

380.0 


<1.6 

<1.6 

1.8 


49.0 

42.0 

108.0 


<2.4 
<2.4 
<2.4 


1.7 
2.3 
2.8 


14.0 
31.0 
10.0 


PH 


Organic 
matter, 
wt pet 


Total 

kjeldohl 

nitrogen, 

mo/kq 


Total 
soluble 

salts, 
mq/kq 


Total 
solids, 
wt pet 


Cation 
exchange 
capacity 


Sand, 
wt pet 


Silt, 
wt pet 


Clay, 
wt pet 


Ra 226, 
Ash 


oCi/o 
Dry 





Source: T. H. Thompson, USGS. 



16 



r 



3.0 
4.5 

E 6.0 

a> 

o 
o 

c/> 7.5 
9.0 
10.5 
12.0 
13.5 
15.0 



Y AV/ f v . 



L 



PI 




Sand 
Organic debris 



Sand 



Sandy clay with 
phosphate 



fTr W 



cz £5 



fyy? ! 



rWTr 



1 1 I I I 



No sample 



Clay 



Limestone 

Core ends at 
14.9 m 







3.0 

4.5 

6.0 h 

7.5 

9.0 
10.5 
12.0 
13.5 
15.0 



^AV/^ 






^ 



iii; 






\ , 1 , \ , 1 



1' 'J I 1 



RP^ 



ffi?p5 



1,1.1 I 



111,1' 



,1.1 , 1 ,1 



1 1 11,1, 



£p 



=5* 



I, II 



CO 



1 I, / / 



T^T 



ss 



1,1.1,1,1 



1,1 , 1 1 1 



16.5 

FIGURE 11.-Lithologic cores 1 and 2 



rj; i 



HE 



Organic debris 

Sand 

Sand with clay 
Sandy clay 

Sand 



Sand with 
phosphate 



Limestone with 
phosphate 

Sandy clay with 
phosphate 



Limestone with 
phosphate 



17 



SITE PREPARATION AND MINING 



In planning for site preparation and mining, Bureau and 
AMAX, Inc., officials wanted to follow normal operating 
procedures as closely as possible. With the exception of 
stockpiling topsoil and ditching and diking to protect the 
25-yr flood plain from runoff, the mining plan successfully 
allowed for the mining of the area using standard dragline 
setup and operating procedures. 

Site preparation began with the surveying of the area 
and locating the downstream runoff interceptor ditch and 
dike. A small, 1.1-m dragline was used to excavate the 
interceptor ditch and construct (fig. 12) the dike. The dike 
slopes were seeded to prevent erosion. 

After ditching and dike construction, bulldozers were 
used to clear the overstory from the project site (fig. 13). 
The downstream limits of the project were separated from 
the vegetation donor site (fig. 5) so that vegetation was 
preserved for transplanting. Throughout the clearing of 



overstory, AMAX, Inc., officials were on site to minimize 
the loss of organic Utter that would be used later for 
reclamation. 

After clearing, pan scrapers were used to remove 
humus and topsoil from the site to be stored for later 
reapplication. The storage piles were graded and sloped 
for stabilization, but not seeded because of concern over 
establishing perennial plants that would be difficult to 
eliminate (5). 

Site preparation and mining began in October 1983 and 
was completed by April 1984. Mining was accomplished 
using a 22.9 -m dragline operating through a sequence of 
cuts as shown in figure 14. Because the area did not 
include a clay lens or any other hardpan aquiclude, 
standard overburden spoil placement techniques were used 
during mining. Figure 15 shows the dragline as it mined 
the test site. 




FIGURE 12.-Dike construction during test site preparation. 



18 




FIGURE 1 3.-Bulldozers clearing overstory before mining. 



Plant site 







LEGEND 

^ Direction of 

mining 

— — Intermittent 
stream 



250 

I 



Scale, m 



FIGURE 14.-Dragline sequence used to mine area containing test site. 



19 




JL 



HHH 

f ' . ■ . I "ft. I ? > 



FIGURE 15.-Dragline mining test site. 



RECONTOURING AND REVEGETATION 



Utilizing information gained during premine monitoring, 
AMAX, Inc., officials and the USFWS in consultation with 
the Bureau, drew up a comprehensive recontouring and 
revegetation plan. This plan details project reclamation 
from grading to the revegetation plot plan. 

GRADING 

Grading began in June 1985 and was completed (fig. 
16) in February 1986. Spoil piles were graded using the 
largest bulldozers available to limit compaction. Spoil 
piles from adjacent cuts to the north and south of the 
project site were used to bring the site to grade. Because 
no aquiclude was present, no special placement of 
overburden material was necessary. Reestablishment of 
the upland areas north and south of the test site required 
the pumping of sand tailings (fig. 17) between the spoil 
piles and into depressions created by pushing overburden 
onto the project site. 

The final grade was established using pan scrapers to 
haul and place the previously stored topsoil. Bulldozers 
were then used to contour the site back to final grade. A 
sharp, meandering swale was placed for the original 



channel (fig. 18). The design will result in a channel 
nearly identical to the original while maintaining water 
quality by lessening erosion that would be caused by 
steeper banks. 

COVER CROP ESTABLISHMENT 

When final grading was completed, a cover crop of 
millet (fig. 16) was sown and 10-10-10 fertilizer was 
applied at the rate of 500 kg/ha. This planting was 
initiated to control erosion, provide mulch to limit sunlight, 
conserve soil moisture, and out compete weed species. 

REVEGETATION 

Revegetation was initiated to restore the existing forest 
canopy and understory. To accomplish this, the USFWS 
set up a revegetation plan that consisted of vegetative 
islands taken from the unmined downstream donor site 
(fig. 5); trees from this site to be spaded with the islands, 
and the planting of an assortment of eight tree species 
identified during the premining monitoring plan as 
community dominants. 



20 




'■ m* : * 



FIGURE 16.-Site after completion of grading, with cover crop established. 




FIGURE 17.-Sand tailings pumped into upland areas. 



21 




N 



LEGEND 

-29— Land surface, 
1.5 m contour 
interval 







250 



Plant site 



Scale, m 



FIGURE 18.-Postmining topography. 



During January and February 1987, vegetative islands 
were transplanted along the reestablished meandering 
swale (fig. 19). The islands, made up of vegetation and 
several feet of surface soil, were transplanted using a large 
front-end loader. Two trees were spaded with each island 
to provide ground cover shading. 

Hand planting of the community dominants began after 
the island transplanting. The seedlings planted varied in 
size from 0.3 m to 1.8 m in height. Large and small 
seedlings were planted at random to insure a staggered 
canopy. The number and species planted were 980 red 
maple, 630 laurel oak, 1,400 loblolly bay, 420 water oak, 
700 sweet bay, 700 red bay, 350 swamp tupelo, 1,400 wax 
myrtle, and 350 slash pine. This gave a total of 6,930 trees 
planted for an average of approximately 1,100 per hectare. 



Color coded flags were placed at each planting location to 
aid in identification and observation on comparative 
survival rates. 

MAINTENANCE 

Maintenance activities will consist of supplemental tree 
seedling plantings, transplanting additional understory 
plugs where natural species have not out competed 
invading weed species, mowing around small seedlings to 
enhance their survival, irrigation, and the use of herbicides. 
If needed, the herbicides will be applied by hand in a 76- 
to 91-cm band around each tree. Selection of the 
herbicide will be based upon the type of vegetation to be 
controlled and the species of tree. 



22 










FIGURE 19. -Transplanted vegetation island. 



WILDLIFE 

There are no plans to place any type of animal species 
into the test site. The downstream area that the site 



borders is undisturbed with the exception of the removal 
of the vegetative islands. It is anticipated that this 
undisturbed area will furnish wildlife to the test site as the 
site approaches premining conditions. (5). 



EVALUATION OF RESTORATION 



Restoration of the project site will be evaluated based 
on the following two criteria: 

1. Tree species are viable and surviving with an average 
of 990 trees per hectare and no hectare has less than 490 
trees. Short-term success determined after the first full 
growing season (spring 1988) as a survival average of 990 
trees per hectare. Long-term success will be determined 
after five full growing seasons (spring 1992), as tree cover 
exceeds 33 pet of the vegetative cover, and no hectare has 
tree cover of less than 20 pet (5). 



2. Herbaceous layer vegetation is naturally reproducing. 
In developing permit stipulations, the regulatory agencies 
involved recognized that it would be unreasonable to 
expect a postmining condition equal to or even nearly 
equal to the premining condition within a 5-yr evaluation 
period. However, if the restoration effort is truly 
successful, the postmining forest community and other 
related ecological factors will evolve toward the premining 
condition with the increasing age of the site (5). 



23 



COST FACTORS 



The cost of earthwork was approximately $1.50/m of 
material moved. Earthwork included all material moving 
activities such as removal and replacement of overburden, 
distribution and rough grading of overburden, and the final 
contouring with stockpiled topsoil. 

Revegetation costs included seeding and overstory 
planting. Seeding with mulching costs $l,300/ha to 
$l,500/ha. Costs for overstory planting varied on the type 
planted. Bareroot seedling cost was $14 to $30 per 
thousand plus $0.30 per tree for planting. Potted stock 



cost between $3.50 and $20 depending on size, plus an 
additional $1 per tree for planting. The cost for tree 
spading was approximately $25 per tree. 

The following are costs per hectare. Monitoring 
represents premining and postmining combined. 

Earthwork $14,090 

Revegetation $4,950 

Monitoring $9,000 



SUMMARY 



The short-term objectives to identify a wetland test site, 
initiate a premining monitoring program, develop an 
acceptable mining plan, and recontour and revegetate the 
mined test site have been achieved. The program of 
cooperating agencies, each responsible for its area of 
expertise, worked smoothly and efficiently. This program 
is recommended to any company or agency that plans any 
research of this type. The premining monitoring program 
was a well thought out and executed plan that can be used 
as a model for similar projects. The mining plan was 
successfully kept within standard operating procedures. It 
varied only with stockpiling of topsoil and the diking of the 
wetland boundary; each of these steps was easily handled 
by the company. The recontouring of the area used 
standard procedures and equipment, although careful 
supervision and a more precise placement of material was 
required. The revegetation plan was straightforward and 
easily implemented. The costs for earthwork and 
revegetation, though high, are fairly standard. Materials 
handling is always expensive, and because of stockpiling 
requirements, doubly so for any type of wetland 



reclamation project. Monitoring costs may seem excessive, 
but it must be realized that the premining program 
established could be used for a site several times larger 
than this without additional cost. It was agreed from the 
outset by the agencies involved that too much monitoring 
would be better than not enough. 

The long-term objective of postmining monitoring will 
take several more years to address. The USGS, in 
conjunction with similar work, will reactivate observation 
wells and place water level recorders and gauges to 
monitor ground and surface waters. A program, 
developed by the USFWS, to monitor vegetative survival 
will be implemented by AMAX, Inc. The program calls 
for a survival average of 900 trees per hectare with no 
hectare having less than 490 trees. Ground cover will be 
monitored for survival, frequency, and areal expansion to 
determine when natural reproduction begins. Biological 
monitoring will continue and records on survival of each 
tree species will be kept to determine the success of the 
different types of plantings. 



REFERENCES 



1. Balazik, R. F. Costs and Effects of Environmental 
Protection Controls Regulating U.S. Phosphate Rock 
Mining. BuMines IC 8932, 1983, 37 pp. 

2. Winchester, B. Assessing Ecological Value of 
Central Florida Wetlands: A Case Study. Paper in 
Proceedings of The Eighth Annual Conference on 
Wetlands Restoration and Creation, ed. by R. H. Stovall. 
Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL, 1981, 
pp. 25-38. 

3. U.S. Government Accounting Office. Phosphates: 
A Case Study of a Valuable, Depleting Mineral in 
America. 1979, 71 pp. 

4. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest 
Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Environmental Assessment on State of Reclamation 
Techniques on Phosphate Mined Lands in Florida and 



Their Application to Phosphate M inin g in the Osceola 
National Forest. U.S. Department of the Interior, Eastern 
States Office, Bureau of Land Management, Alexandria, 
VA, 1983, 47 pp. 

5. Haynes, R. J., and F. Crabill. Reestablishment of a 
Forested Wetland on Phosphate-Mined Land in Central 
Florida. Paper in Conference on Better Reclamation With 
Trees. Madisonville Community College, Madisonville, 
KY, 1984, pp. 1-12. 

6. Thompson, T. H. U.S. Geological Survey. Private 
Communication, 1984; available upon request from J. R. 
Boyle, Jr., BuMines, Tuscaloosa, AL. 

7. Biological Research Associates (Tampa, FL). 
Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Mining Land. 1981, 
109 pp. 



24 



APPENDIX. -PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 

In August 1981, AMAX, Inc., officials contacted the Bureau of Mines proposing a small forested wetland located at 
the Big Four Mine as the site for the Bureau's reclamation project. At that time, AMAX, Inc., officials urged the active 
involvement of local, State, and Federal regulatory agencies. The Bureau strongly agreed and immediately sought 
cooperation and recommendations from these agencies. Even by actively seeking regulatory agency help, permitting of 
this small site took almost 3 yr to complete. Much of the delay came from apprehension that a project of this type would 
set a precedent that would open up the mining of wetlands. 

The following is a permitting chronology of the main permitting agencies: the State of Florida's Department of 
Environmental Regulation (DER), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Hillsborough County Commission, 
and the Southwest Florida Water Management District. 

DER AND DNR PERMITTING CHRONOLOGY 



May 14, 1982 

June 14, 1982 

August, 6, 1982 . . . 
August 27, 1982 . . 
September 3, 1982 . 
September 8, 1982 . 
December 1, 1982 . 
December 8, 1982 . 
January 14, 1983 . . 
October 31, 1983 . . 

November 30, 1983 
January 16, 1984 . . 
January 24, 1984 . . 

June 7, 1984 

March 6, 1985 



AMAX, Inc., submits Dredge and Fill application to DER. 

DER requests additional information. 

AMAX, Inc., submits additional information. 

DER requests additional information. 

AMAX, Inc., submits additional information. 

DER notifies AMAX, Inc., that application is complete as of September 7, 1982. 

DER forwards an intent to issue public notice. 

Public notice advertisement appears in Tampa Tribune. 

DER issues permit. 

As a permit condition, AMAX, Inc., submits restoration and 

revegetation plan to DER for review and approval. 
DER requests additional information. 
AMAX, Inc., submits additional information. 
DER requests additional information. 
AMAX, Inc., submits additional information. 
Governor and cabinet, acting as head of DNR, approve restoration and revegetation 

plan. 



HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PERMITTING CHRONOLOGY 



May 14, 1982 

October 22, 1982 . . 

October 25, 1982 . . 
January 27, 1983 . . 

February 9, 1983 . . 
October 3, 1983 . . 

Early 

November 1983 . . . 

November 23, 1983 



AMAX, Inc., submits a copy of DER permit application to Hillsborough County 

for review. 
Hillsborough County supplies negative comments on the proposed project to the 

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council for an A-95 review. 
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council approves proposed project. 
AMAX, Inc., and Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission staff 

discuss a list of criteria to be followed that would allow a permit to be issued 

for the project. 
Hillsborough County submits a written list of criteria to AMAX Inc. 
AMAX, Inc., submits Mining Unit No. 1C, which includes project site, to 

Hillsborough County for review and approval. Reclamation plan includes list 

of criteria received earlier. 

Meetings are held with Hillsborough County staff to negotiate problems with project. 
Mining Unit No. 1C approved by Hillsborough County Commission with negotiated 
modifications. 



SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 



May 14, 1982 
July 7, 1982 . . 



AMAX, Inc., submits a Works of the District permit application to SWFWMD for 

review and approval. 
Board of Directors of SWFWMD approves permit. 



INT.-BU.OF MINES,PGH.,PA. 28770 



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 611-012 00.001 



DC 

LU 

>- 

o 

_l 
a. 

uu 



tr 
O 

Q_ 
Q_ 
O 
_l 
< 

o 

LU 

z 
< 













§ 


M 


32 ® 


a5 "a 








C/> 

Ui 


LU 
CA 

3 


receiv 
emove 
list. 


® is 

g' O 
<0 T3 

sz c 


it 






CO 

co 


Z 
(0 


UJ 


"- 0) C 


o — 

as 


rtment of 
Mines-Pr 


"O 
CO 
O 

CC 

ii 


o 
o 

CO 


C\J 
ID 

< 

Q_ 


3 
OQ 

-J 
< 


DC 

a. 
cr 
o 
a. 


3 do not wis 
iterial. Plea 
m your mai 


en <u 

(0 »- 

i§ 

T3 0) 

CC (0 

._ « 
O K 


CO H- 

Q. O 


en 

c 


X 




u. 

UL 


fc 


iEl 


CD ^ 

a ca 


CO 
i_ 
-C 

o 
o 


o 

CO 


3 
.Q 


O 


_i 
< 

z 

UJ 

a 






. CD 


d 


to 




n 




3 CO O 


Q_ 


Q_ 






1 





305 91 










s>*^ 







/^•y* \/^Rrj? %J*^^y* \^^V* %/3^y* *V*^^\i 






V* ■ 




* 4* ** • 






* ,J ife- ^"i c ° ^'-^ V* \&&V'i C °*^|k-X /^^SfrV « i -'^- 



« v 4. • " " A. w 







^0 



• .0 































^v 




C^v^v* *v^?V* %/^v?V %^^v 





c ° " ° * o 



,o*..iV..*9, /\.-^.V /.jJ^!.*°o A'ii&r 



<i 




»°v •■ 











^»* 



V^'«* 






* v ^ 



"o 



«5°<* 



^of 



°4i. 



••*««;•. V./ .•£&[•. %<** -'$&• ^/ •*' 













?^ V 






HECKMAN l±| 
HNDERY INC. |H| 

JUN91 



N. MANCHESTER, 
IN DIANA 46962 J 

J °<* 






■■'■ "■■•■■■•■-• 










